Lawyers for quarterback Eli Manning, the New York Giants and most of the other defendants in a lawsuit bought by a collector who alleged the Giants forged game-used memorabilia filed separate motions to dismiss the case in federal court on Thursday.

"In a shameless effort to grab media and public attention, (the plaintiff) and his attorneys filed this baseless action on the eve of Super Bowl XLVIII . . . tactically included as a defendant, Eli Manning," Israel Dahan, one of Manning's attorneys, wrote in a motion dismiss the case brought by collector Eric Inselberg. "(Inselberg) and his attorneys know full well that each and every one of the claims asserted against Manning is wholly unfounded and warrants dismissal."

Manning, the Giants, Giants co-owner, president and CEO John Mara, Giants lawyer William Helle, Giants VP and CFO Christine Procops, Giants equipment managers Edward and Joseph Skiba, and locker-room manager Ed Wagner Jr. all filed motions to dismiss on Thursday. The lone defendant who hasn't filed a motion to dismiss is Rutherford dry cleaner Barry Barone, who had been served with a summons but has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

The 40-page motion by Manning's legal team obtained by NJ.com claimed Inselberg had no direct dealings with Manning and Inselberg never mentioned Manning in a five-year federal investigation of Inselberg, who was the center of a fraud probe that was ultimately dropped by the feds last May.

William O’Shaughnessy, the Newark-based lawyer who represents Mara, the Giants, Heller and Procops, wrote in his motion that Inselberg's lawsuit is a "vicious and irresponsible filing."

"It is also fatally flawed," O’Shaughnessy wrote. "Many of its more serious allegations are based on a truncated and misleading account of the public record in the criminal case."

O'Shaughnessy also called Inselberg's claims "reckless," and "egregious" in the 28-page filing.

Brian Brook, one of Inselberg's lawyers, told NJ.com they had just received the motions.

"Our initial impression is that the motions reflect the same profound arrogance that is chronicled in the complaint as harming my client and many others," Brook said. "We will of course proceed to evaluate the arguments presented by the defendants and respond in court accordingly."

Brook added that Inselberg's lawsuit contains "considerable and compelling evidence supporting the allegations in the complaint" and "there is much more yet to come."

Inselberg claimed in his lawsuit Manning had the Giants equipment employees created a "show helmet" that was purportedly from Super Bowl XLII and is on display at the Pro Football Hall of Game. (A Hall of Fame official told NJ.com that the helmet isn't displayed as a Super Bowl artifact, even though the Hall's website stated otherwise.) Inselberg also claims the Giants conspired to manufacture other game-used items and passed those fakes off as the real thing.

Inselberg claimed the reason federal authorities dismissed fraud charges against him was because "several employees, including (Manning) repeatedly engaged in the distribution of Giants memorabilia."

But O'Shaughnessy wrote Thursday that the reason the case was dropped was because the the email from a cooperating witnesses, Bernie Gernay, that linked Inselbeg to fraud proved to be fake. Gernay was charged with fraud at the same time as Inselbeg.)

"I don't see how a court can possibly decide such an argument as a matter of law," Brook said of O'Shaughnessy's claim.